Levels in starter class

Suggestions
#1

Short Version.

I think there should be at least one level progression for workers. They are doing labour, and even the most unskilled seeming labour is something that you can get skilled at - and the sheer movement alone of mining, building and collecting (even harvesting wild plants) should be enough for them to be able to make even the most tiny progression. This would also allow you to leave characters as workers for longer periods knowing that you weren’t hurting their overall stats (As in, health, speed …etc) progression until they reach the max in which point they would need to move to something more skilled to progress further.

Ideally there would be 3 levels of it - but one level would be enough in my opinion.

3 Likes
#2

The thing is, especially for combat jobs, it can be a long time to get to level 6 if you’ve got levels from previous jobs. Just the 3 levels of footman can make knights and archers take a while if you’re not playing on Hard.

For your non-combat types, you don’t really need many at all set to Worker. Blacksmith and Mason both should be able to mine, I do believe. You might want a couple workers to gather/place things and chop trees. Non-combat jobs can gain really quite a lot of levels (20-24 total levels is doable in even a medium-length game) so again, they don’t really need levels from Worker.

Unless there were more control, like an ability to decline a level and keep your exp locked, I think combat jobs could suffer from levels in Worker.

1 Like
#3

same thing as post above, in an earlier thread.

I still hope for a skill/attribute based system, where worker’s work will train attributes (but not skills), and don’t have to be avoided due to it causing combat class “levels” harder to attain (makes no sense totally, along with other things which makes me dislike the class system).

#4

Honestly Trapper level 6 into Shepard level 6 didnt take too long and neither did Footman level 6 into Archer level 6 or Farmer 6 into Cook 6 and this was on normal

#5

Strange how that didn’t show up on the list, I guess I didn’t search for the right words in the end.

In reality, you always need workers in societies in order to make things function. In Stonehearth, not as much as the manual labour jobs are things that many of the jobs double duty in. I just feel like it shouldn’t seem like you are wasting a Hearthling by keeping them as a Worker class when they don’t gain anything from it - where by if at least they got levels for doing their various tasks they might become better skilled workers down the line when you are ready to make the transition (if you make the transition).

#6

There’s no needed for levels added to starter classes because they get their buff from their gear.

IF there were a variety of worker gear(mining outfit/harvesting outfit/etc) that upgrade certain things instead of the overall speed boost, that’d be cool though.

#7

I agree with that: workers shouldn’t “go to waste”.

The problem is that with the current “class” system, gaining levels for workers -> slow progression for subsequent classes. It is probably not so apparent for classes that “auto” gains xp. But take those that don’t, or is resource-limited, like blacksmith. Raising a blacksmith from a lvl 3 of some other class will greatly slow down the progression.

Which is why I voiced out my disagreement of class system, and why a skill/attribute system would be better.

Such as system will allow concepts like hauling training no skills itself, but trains “attributes” instead, which is shared by other skills should the hearthling switches job (e.g. becoming a blacksmith will still gain bonus from the strength trained by hauling, since smithing jobs requires strength as well). And no such thing like class levels which artificially limits skills that should be independent.
(some claimed that incremental xp progression requirement limits hp gained “per level”. My reply would be : the hp gained per level should be abolished, being so artificial. Instead, associate hp directly with an attribute, like constitution, which in turn can be trained by any actions appropriate, INCLUDING hauling. Constitution itself have its own standard progression, which can have incremental requirement, but it will be the same for all hearthlings, and not affected by how many other skills the hearthling gains.)

#8

It honestly might be too much to ask a developer to upend their development, and change direction on a pivotal system. As a developer, I imagine they try to look at the big picture as much of the systems talk should be completed at this stage depending on how they go about it.

The separate classes in itself give it a sort of old style RPG feel to the towns - without this, it becomes a very different entity.

I’ve always thought the building of scaffolding leads to a lot of issues, issues that constantly need to be addressed as the alpha progresses, but it is part of the choices made for the game to have them meticulously build these structures before your eyes (Which can be sorta neat to watch).

Maybe classless workers should gain experience towards other jobs, depending on what they are tasked with - so that when a transition happens and they’ve been fetching wild plants, or digging out ore - they might get respective experience toward levels in those fields (Though they tend to just be self automated as a worker and depending on laziness, do whatever needs to be done within their power at the time).

#9

lol. I’m not really expecting the developers to change anything. I just make suggestions.I won’t get particular upset or anything even if the suggestions are not adopted. It is up to dev to take whatever they find useful, or want to include, and ditch the rest. I am just throwing those out in case they DO find something useful. i.e. kinda like buying lottery: not much expectations, but just a teeny bit of hope.

I am a dev myself (not games. more systems), so I am biased towards “actual implementers should make final decisions” stance as well :wink: